Something, many things are wrong in this state, DCF/CPS  and the Federal money they get for taking children illegally. Family courts and orders that are given are as useless as a dirty diaper. Who is it you go to to about the injustice? There is no one, no one listens. The Judicial committee I thought was supposed to help and protect, I need to stop thinking… So many ask, “what do I do” I do not have the answer but am searching for it. I have a hard time understanding why it is so hard for a mother or a father to be able to be a parent to a child they love. When there is an order in place and it is useless because there are some parent’s that use children as a “tool” to get back at the other parent. Yes it hurts the parent but the real damage is done to the child. Children are innocent, they should not be kept away from a parent due to ill feeling from the non custodial parent. It is the most selfish act that could possibly be done.  A break up or divorce is not easy, but why? WHY take it out on the child, the mental scars that are left on that child are scars that will always be there.

Shame on the court’s for allowing this. Shame on the custodial parent for keeping a child or children that belong to both parents. It turns into “my” child not ours. Court orders hold no weight, they are not enforced, children need both parents, and so many are being robbed by having the right to play a part in the child or children’s lives.

When an order is made and you have set days to see your child/children if the other parent breaks the order, file a motion for contempt, or call the police and show them your order, they will help enforce the order, and ensure you see your child/children. There are FAR to many parents that are just plain selfish, and do not care about what the children feel. Children should not be used as bait, or a way of control.

Incoming search terms:

• parents use child as bait
• the damage that is done to children when one parent is kept away

—–Original Message—–
From: monicafore <monicafore@aim.com>
To: monicafore <monicafore@aim.com>; christopher.alexy <christopher.alexy@po.state.ct.us>; michaelbthomasesq <michaelbthomasesq@gmail.com>; cindy.dubuque <cindy.dubuque@ct.gov>; thomas.ventre <thomas.ventre@ct.gov>; stephen.hennessey <stephen.hennessey@ct.gov>; Harp <Harp@senatedems.ct.gov>; Prague <Prague@senatedems.ct.gov>; lexiemangum <lexiemangum@gmail.com>; joan.gibson <joan.gibson@po.state.ct.us>; Joan.Gibson <Joan.Gibson@ct.gov>; Marie.Lopez.Kirkley-Bey <Marie.Lopez.Kirkley-Bey@cga.ct.gov>; glenn.cassis <glenn.cassis@cga.ct.gov>; henryberryinct <henryberryinct@gmail.com>; bbonina <bbonina@txcc.commnet.edu>; bob <bob@the4cs.org>; jemar.smith <jemar.smith@cga.ct.gov>; Eric.Coleman <Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov>; conndcj <conndcj@po.state.ct.us>; john.whalen <john.whalen@po.state.ct.us>; john.rich <john.rich@ct.gov>; charles.sarant <charles.sarant@ct.gov>; newhaven <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>; AskDOJ <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>; Beth.Margulies <Beth.Margulies@ct.gov>; jselderesq <jselderesq@aol.com>; jselderesq <jselderesq@msn.com>; Franklin.Rutledge <Franklin.Rutledge@anthem.com>

Incoming search terms:

• monica fore ct
• hennessy law office of @att net
• charles sarant
• CT office of attorney general stephen Hennessey fax phone number contact
• monica ervin ct
• suzanne colosanto and attorney

Sincerely,

Monica Fore

Incoming search terms:

• carla machado rodrigues
• cherida ekpunobi
• leigh knopf ct
• genita mangum
• Patricia Omari
• stacy mathena farmington ct
• arthur paulette jr
• Marjorie Laboriel
• leigh knopf of avon ct
• obed delancy tunxis community college

Disgusting courts….. allowing this pain, we are not LAB RATS WE ARE PARENTS…. you live on lies, we  live on love. memory’s, and most importantly, the PROMISE TO NEVER GIVE UP.

To all the hurting parent’s we need to unite… as we have been, these are our children.  FAMILY COURTS…. YOU ARE THE REASON, YOU HAVE ALLOWED IT. We as parents are taking action against the corrupt Judges and fake G.A.L’S

This story is so true, no words spoken just the love in the child and parents eyes. Why do so many have to hurt? Why after the thousands of cries NOTHING is done. The courts have this “untouchable” “Do as they many syndrome” Who cares about the thousands they hurt. Who is overlooking these CORRUPT JUDGES? WHO IS LETTING THEM DESTROY A GOOD MOTHER A GOOD FATHER? Why does it not matter, we are human beings, this is America!!!! Land of the free home of the brave, but a slap in the face and who cares about your feelings. This is the biggest war, with all of the hurt parents, and all of them coming together, the day will come where the questions will be answered. YOU! THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM are to blame for letting this happen, who cares, it isn’t your family, time on the bench is money in your pocket. You cannot buy love, nor can you fight it. As we get stronger and our voices get louder we will one day end this war. You have destroyed far to many…..

It is no secret that the family court system has the power to rip families apart. The corrupt judges that took an oath to protect are hardly doing that.  The Guardian ad let em’s that are appointed run up a hefty bill that can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Children are forced to choose the parent they would like to reside with and that is a hard choice for a child to make.

The Judges and Magistrates do not put the child’s best interest first. Parents are being incarcerated for arrears in child support even when effort is being made. It is hard enough to provide in one household in this economy and being the parent paying child support seems to fall victim in many different areas. They do not get the equal parenting time  that should be given. Parents should be able to parent as  50/50 unless a parent has done something to lose the option. Children need both parents, they deserve both parents. It should not come down to money, a child’s love has no cost, a parents love has no cost.

With the number of questionable Judges and Magistrates on the bench that are ruining lives daily. Parents are losing everything to fight for their children, and they end up in debt. Having a court appointed attorney does not offer much help, they are far to overloaded and do not have the time to give the person in need of legal guidance.

People feeling as if they are just puppets the strings being held by the Judges behind the bench.

So many complaints about the Judges Names are listed below

Hon. Alan E. Steele

Hon. Elliot Solomon

Hon. Jorge A Simon

Hon. Patty  Pittman

Hon. Barbra Quinn

Hon. Barry C Pinkus

Family Magistrate.

Katherine Hutchinson

Harris T Lifshitz

Incoming search terms:

• harris t lifshitz
• harris lifshitz
• judge solomon connecticut
• alan e steele
• judge solomon in CT
• judge liftshitz ct
• judge elliot solomon ct
• judge eliot solomon
• hon patty pittman
• family courts ruin lives

POINTS OF LAW
Which support and in turn are supported
by the Constitution of the United States of America.

1. “Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its letter.” Norris v. Baltimore, 172, MD 667; 192 A 531.0.

2. “It cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the Sovereign power.” Cooke v. Iverson, 122, N.W. 251.

3. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

4. “The Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 176 (U.S.Supreme Ct)

5. “The Bill of Rights was provided as a BARRIER, to protect, the individual against the arbitrary extractions of the majorities, executives, legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes.” STANDLER – Supreme Court of Florida en banc, 36 so 2d 443, 445(1948)

6. “Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.” Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512 CA Tex(1974)

7. “It is a duty as much as a right for all citizens to jealously and zealously protect their Fourth Amendment rights.” U.S. Supreme Court, appeal of Chimel v. Calif. 89 S Ct 2034

8. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule in making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct) 380 US 436(1966)

9. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)

10. “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simmons v. U. S., 390, US 389(1968)

11. “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime.” Miller v.U. S., 230 F 486 at 489

12. “When Constitutional rights have been violated, remedies for violations are not dependant upon fictionalized distinctions.” Kelly v. U. S., 379 F Sup 532

13. Ed 1165: “In determining whether…rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form;” ID., Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 US 230, 20 Sup., Ct., 620 44 L Ed 747

14. “One need not be a criminal to claim Fifth Amendment (right), it applies to civil suits as well.” Isaacs v. U.S., 256 F 2d 654.

15. “Fifth Amendment (right) is available to outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings…” Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct.) 380 US 436(1966)

16. “Civil contempts are sometimes civil in name only, entailing what are in reality criminal punishments.” Wyman v. Uphaus, 360 US 72(1959)

17. “To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress.” U.S. v. Lombarde, 228 F. 980

18. “All acts of legislature…contrary to natural right and justice are void.” Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109(1772)

19. “law of the land…renders judgment only after trial.” Dartmouth College v. Woodward 4 Wheet, US 518, 4 Ed 629(1814)

20. “due course of law…is synonymous with ‘due process of law’ or ‘law of the land”’… Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 19 Kan 542 (See also Davidson v. New Orelans, 96 US 97, 24, L Ed 616).

21. “Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or of having to accept counsel beholden to one’s adversary.” Burgett v. Texas, 389 US 109

22. “A state or federal court which arbitrarily refuses to hear a party by counsel…civil or criminal, denies the party a hearing, and therefore denies him due process of law in a Constitutional sense.” Reynolds, v. Cochran, 365 US 525, 51 Ed @d 754, 81 S Ct 723 in Am Jur P.979

23. “A plaintiff need not pursue his state remedies before instituting a 1983 action.” Monroe v. Pape (or perhaps Pope), 365 US 167(1961)

24. “To maintain an action under (42 USC) 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposely, or in furtherance of a conspiracy… it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation… was the natural consequences of Defendants acting under the color of law…” Ethridge v Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Sup 83(1967), Whirl v. Kern, CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968) Ury v. Santee, DC Ill,(1969)

25. “In a 42-1983 action, the allegations of the Complaint and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, upon a motion to dismiss, must be taken most favorably to the Plaintiff.” Nanez v. Ritger, DC Wis. 304 F Sup 354(1969)

26. “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 LRA 630 AM ST 459

27. “Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may…promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote v. Bd. of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 2 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660. (See also Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S Ct 1314.)

28. “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)

29. “The judicial branch has only one duty – to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former…the only power it (the Court) has…is the power of judgment.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 US(1936)

30. “A claim under the civil rights act expressly gives the District Court Jurisdiction, no matter how imperfectly the claim is stated.” Harmon v. Superior Ct of the State of California, 307 F 2d 796, CA 9(1962)

31. “A court is without power to render a judgment it lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter…In such cases, the judgment is void, has no authority and may be impeached.” O’Leary v. Waterbury Title Co., 117 Conn 39, 43, 166 A. 673

32. “Courts, (must) indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and…not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.” Dimmock v. Scalded, 293 US 474(1935) 304 US at 464

33. “A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of claim, baseless though it may prove to be and inartistically as the complaint may be drawn. This is particularly true where the Plaintiff is not represented by counsel.” Brooks v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 91 F Sup 101 DC SD NY(1950)

34. “a motion to dismiss is not to be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of acts which would entitle him to relief.” “Haines v. Keener, 404 US 519, 30 L Ed 2d 652, 92 S CT 594(1972)

35. “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same ruses of conduct that are commands to the citizen.” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438 485; 48 S CT L ED 944(1928)

36. “Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of…rights on the strength of 18 usc 242.” Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 37. “Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts.” Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335(1871)

38. “Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property.” Fireman’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Washburn County, 2 Wis 2d 214, 85 N.W. 2d 840(1957)

39. “Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people.” Rabon v. Rowen Memorial Hosp., Inc., 269 NS 1, 13, 152 SE 1d 485, 493(1967) 40. “Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under ‘color of law’.” Stringer v. Dilger, CA 10 Colo 313 F 2d 536(1963)

41. “A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act.” Ex Parte Virginia, 100 US 339(1879), (54 US v. Moylon 417 F 2d 1002, 1006(1969))

42. “the language and purpose of the civil rights acts, are inconsistent with the application of common law notions of official immunity…” Jacobsen v. Henne, CA 2 NY 335 F 2d 129, 133 (1966). (See also Anderson v. Nosser, CA 5 Miss 428 F 2d 183 (1971))

43. “Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights.” Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me. 309 F Sup 95(1970)

44. “Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction.” Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871)

45. “When the responsibilities of lawmaker, prosecutor, judge, jury and disciplinarian are thrust upon a judge he is obviously incapable of holding the scales of justice perfectly fair and true.” Fisher v. Pace, 336 US 155 at 167

46. “the jury…acts not only as a safeguard against judicial excesses, but also as a barrier to legislative and executive oppression. The Supreme Court… recognizes that the jury…is designed to protect Defendants against oppressive governmental practices.” United States ex rel Toth v. Quarles, 350 US 11, 16 (1955)

47. The Jury has “an unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge.” U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972) 

48. “The common law right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts remains unimpaired.” State v. Croteau, 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849)

50. “A conviction obtained where the accused was denied counsel is treated as void for all purposes.” Burgett v. Texas, 389, US 109 (1967)

51. “A conviction under an unconstitutional law is…illegal and void and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment; the courts must liberate a person imprisoned under it…one imprisoned…may be discharged by the writ of ‘Habeas Corpus’.” (16 Am Jur Sec 150)

52. “Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” 362 US S 145, 176, 80 S Ct 630, 647 4 L Ed 623 (1960)

53. “To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals…is none the less robbery because it was done under the forms of law and is called taxation.” Miller 20 Wall 655, 663, 664 (1874)

54. K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990. “No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.”

*****************************************************************
“In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts…as in civil cases.” Under Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution the above law (which appears in the Constitution of Oregon and the constitutions of numerous other states) has the standing and force of Constitutional law in all states.

Acknowledgment- From http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/ptsoflaw.pdf

Incoming search terms:

• rabon v rowen memorial hospital inc
• rabon v rowell memorial hosp
• rabon v rowen hospital inc
• rabon v rowen memorial hospital

THE SOLEMN                        

A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

A kangaroo court’s proceedings deny, hinder or obstruct due process rights in the name of expediency. Typically, a kangaroo court will deliberately abuse one or more of the following rights of the accused:

• right to hear a full statement of the exact charges made against the accused
• right to have adequate time and resources to prepare a defense against the charges
• right to summon witnesses
• right of cross-examination
• right to introduce evidence which supports acquittal of the accused
• right not to incriminate oneself
• right not to be tried on secret evidence
• right to control one’s own defense
• right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay
• right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest
• right to have a verbatim stenographic record of the trial proceedings created
• right of appeal

The term is often applied to courts subjectively judged as such, while others consider the court to be legitimate and legal. A kangaroo court may be a court that has had its integrity compromised; for example, if the judge is not impartial and refuses to be recused.

It may also be an elaborately scripted event intended to appear fair while having the outcome predetermined from the start. Terms meaning “show trial”, like the German Schauprozess, indicate the result is fixed before (usually guilty): the “trial” is just for show. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s kangaroo trials against his enemies, whom he labeled enemies of the people, were notorious, notably in the context of the Great Purge.

In 2008, Singapore’s Attorney-General applied to the High Court to commence contempt proceedings against three individuals who appeared in the new Supreme Court building wearing identical white T-shirts bearing a palm-sized picture of a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown.

Following the January 25 Revolution in Egypt in 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces used military trials to obtain convictions of civilians in possibly over 10,000 trials that lasted on average 20 minutes, and in some cases lasting only a few minutes.

Incoming search terms:

• ct kangaroo court

Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so judges – instead of legislators – may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government shall not be unfair to the people or shall not abuse them physically.

Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.^[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.^[2]

Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

Definition obtained from Wikipedia

Incoming search terms:

• due process
• due process of law
• due process picture
• due process of the law
• due process pictures
• right to due process
• due process dcf
• what is due process of law
• what is due process
• what is the due process of laws